亚太地区稳定性冠状动脉疾病管理策略的差异:来自一项跨国调查的见解

IF 2.5 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Lucky Cuenza, Satoshi Honda, Khi Yung Fong, Mitsuaki Sawano, F Aaysha Cader, Purich Surunchupakorn, Wishnu Aditya Widodo, Mayank Dalakoti, Jeehoon Kang, Misato Chimura, Mohammed Al-Omary, Zhen-Vin Lee, Novi Yanti Sari, Thanawat Suesat, Tanveer Ahmad, Jose Donato Magno, Chen Ting Tan, Badai Bhatara Tiksnadi, Uditha Hewarathna, Faisal Habib, Derek Pok Him Lee, Jonathan Yap
{"title":"亚太地区稳定性冠状动脉疾病管理策略的差异:来自一项跨国调查的见解","authors":"Lucky Cuenza, Satoshi Honda, Khi Yung Fong, Mitsuaki Sawano, F Aaysha Cader, Purich Surunchupakorn, Wishnu Aditya Widodo, Mayank Dalakoti, Jeehoon Kang, Misato Chimura, Mohammed Al-Omary, Zhen-Vin Lee, Novi Yanti Sari, Thanawat Suesat, Tanveer Ahmad, Jose Donato Magno, Chen Ting Tan, Badai Bhatara Tiksnadi, Uditha Hewarathna, Faisal Habib, Derek Pok Him Lee, Jonathan Yap","doi":"10.47102/annals-acadmedsg.2024340","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have informed guideline recommendations for the management of stable coronary artery disease (CAD). However, the real-world impact of contemporary guidelines and trials on practising physicians in the Asia-Pacific region remains uncertain. We aimed to evaluate the knowledge, attitudes and practices among cardiovascular physicians in the region regarding stable CAD management.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>An anonymised cross-sectional electronic survey was administered to cardiovascular practitioners from the Asia Pacific, assessing 3 domains: 1) baseline knowledge on recent trials and society guideline, 2) attitudes towards stable CAD, and 3) case scenarios reflecting management preferences. Correlations among knowledge, attitudes and practice scores were assessed between physicians from developed and developing countries using Pearson correlation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 713 respondents from 21 countries completed the survey. The mean knowledge score was 2.90±1.18 (out of 4), with 37.3% of respondents answering all questions correctly, while 74.6% noted that guidelines have significant impact on their practice. Despite guidelines recommending optimal medical therapy, majority chose revascularisation (range 53.4- 90.6%) as the preferred strategy for the case scenarios. Practitioners from developed regions had higher knowledge scores and lower attitude scores compared to developing regions, while practice scores were similar in both groups. Weakly positive correlations were noted between knowledge, attitude and practice scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Variations exist in knowledge and attitudes towards guideline recommendations and correspondingly actual clinical practice in the Asia Pacific, with most practitioners choosing an upfront invasive strategy for the treatment of stable CAD. These differences reflect real-world disparities in guideline interpretation and clinical adoption.</p>","PeriodicalId":502093,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore","volume":"54 5","pages":"283-295"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Variations in management strategies for stable coronary artery disease in the Asia-Pacific region: Insights from a multinational survey.\",\"authors\":\"Lucky Cuenza, Satoshi Honda, Khi Yung Fong, Mitsuaki Sawano, F Aaysha Cader, Purich Surunchupakorn, Wishnu Aditya Widodo, Mayank Dalakoti, Jeehoon Kang, Misato Chimura, Mohammed Al-Omary, Zhen-Vin Lee, Novi Yanti Sari, Thanawat Suesat, Tanveer Ahmad, Jose Donato Magno, Chen Ting Tan, Badai Bhatara Tiksnadi, Uditha Hewarathna, Faisal Habib, Derek Pok Him Lee, Jonathan Yap\",\"doi\":\"10.47102/annals-acadmedsg.2024340\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have informed guideline recommendations for the management of stable coronary artery disease (CAD). However, the real-world impact of contemporary guidelines and trials on practising physicians in the Asia-Pacific region remains uncertain. We aimed to evaluate the knowledge, attitudes and practices among cardiovascular physicians in the region regarding stable CAD management.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>An anonymised cross-sectional electronic survey was administered to cardiovascular practitioners from the Asia Pacific, assessing 3 domains: 1) baseline knowledge on recent trials and society guideline, 2) attitudes towards stable CAD, and 3) case scenarios reflecting management preferences. Correlations among knowledge, attitudes and practice scores were assessed between physicians from developed and developing countries using Pearson correlation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 713 respondents from 21 countries completed the survey. The mean knowledge score was 2.90±1.18 (out of 4), with 37.3% of respondents answering all questions correctly, while 74.6% noted that guidelines have significant impact on their practice. Despite guidelines recommending optimal medical therapy, majority chose revascularisation (range 53.4- 90.6%) as the preferred strategy for the case scenarios. Practitioners from developed regions had higher knowledge scores and lower attitude scores compared to developing regions, while practice scores were similar in both groups. Weakly positive correlations were noted between knowledge, attitude and practice scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Variations exist in knowledge and attitudes towards guideline recommendations and correspondingly actual clinical practice in the Asia Pacific, with most practitioners choosing an upfront invasive strategy for the treatment of stable CAD. These differences reflect real-world disparities in guideline interpretation and clinical adoption.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":502093,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore\",\"volume\":\"54 5\",\"pages\":\"283-295\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.47102/annals-acadmedsg.2024340\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47102/annals-acadmedsg.2024340","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导论:随机对照试验(RCTs)为稳定型冠状动脉疾病(CAD)的治疗提供了指导建议。然而,当代指南和试验对亚太地区执业医生的实际影响仍不确定。我们的目的是评估该地区心血管医生关于稳定CAD管理的知识、态度和做法。方法:对来自亚太地区的心血管从业者进行匿名横断面电子调查,评估3个领域:1)对近期试验和社会指南的基线知识,2)对稳定CAD的态度,以及3)反映管理偏好的案例场景。利用Pearson相关性对发达国家和发展中国家医生的知识、态度和实践得分进行了相关性评估。结果:共有来自21个国家的713名受访者完成了调查。平均知识得分为2.90±1.18分(满分4分),37.3%的受访者正确回答了所有问题,74.6%的受访者认为指南对他们的实践有显著影响。尽管指南推荐最佳药物治疗,但大多数人选择血管重建(范围53.4- 90.6%)作为病例方案的首选策略。发达地区从业人员的知识得分高于发展中地区从业人员,态度得分低于发展中地区从业人员,而两组从业人员的实践得分相近。知识、态度和实践得分呈弱正相关。结论:亚太地区对指南建议和相应的实际临床实践的认识和态度存在差异,大多数从业人员选择预先侵入策略治疗稳定型CAD。这些差异反映了现实世界中指南解释和临床采用的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Variations in management strategies for stable coronary artery disease in the Asia-Pacific region: Insights from a multinational survey.

Introduction: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have informed guideline recommendations for the management of stable coronary artery disease (CAD). However, the real-world impact of contemporary guidelines and trials on practising physicians in the Asia-Pacific region remains uncertain. We aimed to evaluate the knowledge, attitudes and practices among cardiovascular physicians in the region regarding stable CAD management.

Method: An anonymised cross-sectional electronic survey was administered to cardiovascular practitioners from the Asia Pacific, assessing 3 domains: 1) baseline knowledge on recent trials and society guideline, 2) attitudes towards stable CAD, and 3) case scenarios reflecting management preferences. Correlations among knowledge, attitudes and practice scores were assessed between physicians from developed and developing countries using Pearson correlation.

Results: Overall, 713 respondents from 21 countries completed the survey. The mean knowledge score was 2.90±1.18 (out of 4), with 37.3% of respondents answering all questions correctly, while 74.6% noted that guidelines have significant impact on their practice. Despite guidelines recommending optimal medical therapy, majority chose revascularisation (range 53.4- 90.6%) as the preferred strategy for the case scenarios. Practitioners from developed regions had higher knowledge scores and lower attitude scores compared to developing regions, while practice scores were similar in both groups. Weakly positive correlations were noted between knowledge, attitude and practice scores.

Conclusion: Variations exist in knowledge and attitudes towards guideline recommendations and correspondingly actual clinical practice in the Asia Pacific, with most practitioners choosing an upfront invasive strategy for the treatment of stable CAD. These differences reflect real-world disparities in guideline interpretation and clinical adoption.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信